On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 04:32:03PM +1000, Simon Burge wrote:
> Should you be allowed to call dirname(3) on the results of a previous
> dirname(3) call?
This is about minidlna, right? if it works, please feel free to add
SSP_SUPPORTED= no
to the makefile.
it's a hack, but it'll give us the ability
m...@netbsd.org wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 04:32:03PM +1000, Simon Burge wrote:
> > Should you be allowed to call dirname(3) on the results of a previous
> > dirname(3) call?
>
> This is about minidlna, right?
Yes, minidlna.
> if it works, please feel free to add
> SSP_SUPPORTED= no
> to t
In article <20180926124258.ga14...@homeworld.netbsd.org>,
wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 04:32:03PM +1000, Simon Burge wrote:
>> Should you be allowed to call dirname(3) on the results of a previous
>> dirname(3) call?
>
>This is about minidlna, right? if it works, please feel free to add
>SSP_S
Date:Wed, 26 Sep 2018 16:42:27 + (UTC)
From:chris...@astron.com (Christos Zoulas)
Message-ID:
| Well, it will return the wrong results... so might as well change the
| memcpy to memmove? No?
That would certainly not do any harm, but it would still be better t
Date:Wed, 26 Sep 2018 16:42:27 + (UTC)
From:chris...@astron.com (Christos Zoulas)
Message-ID:
| Well, it will return the wrong results... so might as well change the
| memcpy to memmove? No?
The results would not have been wrong - this was purely a SSP detect
